Anjruu

A man holds up a 100 pound weight. He applies a force to the weight of 98 Newtons to hold up the weight (f=m*a). Gravity likewise applies the same force. However, the man will eventually get tired, but gravity will not. Gravity's force is eternal. Doesn't this violate conservation of energy? The same is true of the other 3 fundamental forces.

Lets look at it, instead of mathematically, theoretically. So, 6/3, is there are six apples, divided into three groups. How many apples are in each group? Two. Now, you have 6/OO. (OO is infinity for this, I don't have spiffy computer infinity functions). So, you have 6 apples, divided into an infinite number of groups. Logically, each group must have an infinitly small piece of an apple. So like, 0.00000000...1 apples. Since this is such a small number, actually, an infinitely small number, we can round it to 0. Anything divided by infinity is equal to zero. Just like MathsisFun said. Wouldnt 00/00 just be 1? Since anything devided by itself is one?

Radio waves are also photons, and particles can travel through vacuum. I believe that this property is one of the particle-states of light. How a wave can be a particle and vice versa is something I think nobody understands, much less a high school physics student.

From what I could gather with your overly long sentences that lack any sort of structure, you are completly correct. However, in sci-fi movies, you hear "zaps" and "bings" as lasers fire from ships, which is also total bull.

Actually, I believe, though I cannot back it up, that, besides shrinking in size, crocs are the least changed species in the fossil record. However, if an animal or individual inside a species were to be able to live for a long time, that would imply that the current genetic make-up "works", so evolution would not "want" to cause change, and if a sudden change in enviornment came along, the individuals would die prematurly, so their extra longevity would not come into effect. For example, humans' possible life-span has remained the same, but with advances in medication, more easily accesible nutrition, ect, more of us have been nearing that age (the cut-off seems to be around 120). This has not stopped us from evolving, however, because those unsuited died long before reaching the cutoff. Therefore, a long lifespan, or lack of one, is not a tool of evolution, because those who die do so long before the age limit.

Right. In that case, the correct answer to question one would be "b". What am I missing, because Sarahisme said that the answer was "c".

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you.

Woah! That thing is awesome! I wish I had that for my electrodynamics tests... 1) Anyway, I may be wrong, but if the mass is the same, and the length is doubled, that would be R=p (2L)/(1/2 A). 2/(1/2) is equal to 4, so, the formula becomes R=p (4) L/A. Since p L/A=p L/A, they cancel, leaving 4. Would it not then be b? In order to acount for the mass remaining constant, the cross-sectional area must decrease by the same factor that the length increased...? 2) I agree with you on that one.

The quantum fluxuations are supposed to be "negative energy", and thus they add "negative mass", which detracts from the overall mass. I have no clue how something can have negative energy, however.

As stereotypical as this may seem, I have recently read Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe." Concerning the weak and strong forces, Greene says on page 10, "the strong and weak forces are less familiar because their strength diminishes over all but subatomic scales." However, on page 177, he talks about how the strength of the weak and strong forces diminishes over short distances, because "the quantum cloud of particles eruptions and annihilations amplifies the strength of the strong and weak forces...and so the strengths of these forces get weaker when they are probed on shorter distances." This seems like a non-sequitur to me, wouldn't the forces INCREASE over non-sub-atomic scales, since there is a huge amount of atomic cloud? Where do the forces' strength peak?